Talk:List of languages by first written account/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sumerian

Hi everyone. Just one question: What about Sumerian, until now the oldest known written language? Is there a specific reason why it wasn't included in this list? --XVoX 01:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This list is, like the article says, very incomplete.There are and were thousands of languages, and they'll probably never all be included. But if you have the date of the first written source in sumerian, please include it!

Rex 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the same kind of list in a book, but don't remember which. It stressed that Irish and other languages with relatively few speakers had earlier written records than bigger ones. Wikipeditor 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorting

I think we should sort the list somehow... would it be better sorting it by Name of the language or by year of first writing? I think the latter might be more interesting. — N-true 14:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, it is already sorted! How stupid of me. Forget my comment. ;) — N-true 14:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to list also, the name of the earliest recorded piece of literature beside the date? For example, the earliest extant document in English is thought to be Caedmon's Hymn (as I learned from the article Anglo-Saxon literature; however, apparently the Franks casket from around the same time also has a claim... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Esperanto

I removed it - this article is about about "finding written accounts", which generally refers to natural languages. --82.139.47.117 15:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case there are a number of artificial languages on the list that should not be here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we should remove all constructed languages. It's meaningless to speak of a "first written account" of a language that was invented on paper.--Pharos 00:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way is it meaningless? It means exactly the same thing it means when it applies to natural languages.

I see no reason why artificial languages should not be included. --Ptcamn 02:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Natural languages existed for hundreds or thousands of years before eventually they were written down and their speakers' cultures changed profoundly. That's the whole reason why this list is significant. In no case did a constructed language first emerge in spoken form; they were all written from the start (indeed, they were in all cases first described before there was any speech community).--Pharos 02:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Ubykh culture was profoundly changed by Evliya Çelebi's presence, or Gamilaraay by Thomas Mitchell's. This is about the earliest known written records, not the advent of literacy or the shift from a spoken to a written language.

If we were about the effect of writing on culture, shouldn't we separate those cases where writing was restricted to a privileged class from those were the general population could read and write? --Ptcamn 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Galician

The Galician was before than the spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.38.31 (talk • contribs)

That's as may be, but this is about written records, not the ages of the spoken languages. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

French

The first written account of ( ancient ) French is 843 , and not circa 1300 as previously stated : it is in the oath of Strasbourg , in which two of Charlemagne's grandsons , Charles the Bald and Louis the Germanic , promise mutual assistance against their brother Lothaire. It also has an ancient German version

Drepanopulos

Are you sure this is Old French and not Gallo-Roman? Rex 22:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

'Unreferenced'

Someone recently added an "unreferenced" template. I think it would be impractical to add references and footnotes for every single language here, particularly when most of the information is already in the wikipedia and can be found by clicking the language links. But this problem might be alleviated if we expand the list to name the document that is considered the earliest specimen. For example, for the language I just now added, Maltese, we would write to the right, Cantilena. That would add information and make it easier to keep track of the various claims, probably better than adding footnotes. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the template, and your suggestion for the additional information is a good one. Should this be converted to a tabular format? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ages added by Dbachmann"

I appreciate the effort, but don't all these ages occupy different time periods in different cultures and areas of the world? Rex 21:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of them do, but they roughly correspond. On the other hand, the ages in the article as it now stands are pretty useless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should go back to the "BC/AD" dates.Rex 09:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the BC-AD/BCE-CE argument, it's just that dividing the list up this way doesn't seem particularly useful to me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bronze Age

"bronze age" is not a precise enough term - not all cultures had bronze age at the same time, and some never had) is basically true, but irrelevant here, since all these languages were part of the Near Eastern Bronze Age, plus China, which was at the time also in the Bronze Age. Emergence of writing was one major feature of the Bronze age, and an article on Bronze Age writing is fully justified. Except for some undeciphered scripts (such as the "Indus script"), which also fall into the Bronze age, this list is also complete: there are really only an handful of Bronze Age cultures who used writing before 1000 BC. The following sections of -1000 to 0, 0 to 1000, 1000 to 1500 and post-1500 are more arbitrary, but they basically correspond to "Iron Age", "Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages", "High Middle Ages to Renaissance" and "Modern", but we should avoid these terms, since Maya, for example, cannot be classified as attested in "Late Antiquity" or "Iron Age". dab (𒁳) 09:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong Dab - there are cultures who have had scripts but no bronze age. The Olmec culture for example are known to have had a script, the use of writing among the zapotecs is also documented ealier than any development of metallurgy. "Bronze age" is a eurocentric denomination of the period and it also is disharmonious with the rest of the "ages" that are given by exact years. The reason that Olmecs arent included in the list is that we don't know in which language they wrote. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I just said, this is true but irrelevant, since the Olmec script isn't attested before 1000 BC, and thus doesn't collide with the "Bronze Age" header: the Isthmian script safely belongs within the "1st millennium BC" section. If you can give me a 2nd millennium BC script from a non-Bronze-Age culture, you would have a point, but short of including Neolithic stuff (Old European script), I do not think you can do that. dab (𒁳) 09:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really insist, the first section could be "4th to 2nd millennia BC", but "Bronze Age" is better, since it is accurate: before 1000 BC, there was no writing without Bronze :) dab (𒁳) 09:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't insist if not other editors had expressed the same concerns above (USer:Rex). I think "bronze age" is too eurocentric. The inclusion of Olmec or not rests on a shaky daing of a few texts such as the Cascajal block now dated to 900BCE but the proper dating of which (which is not yet carried out) could push Olmec back in the second millenium BCE. I also remain sceptic to the notion that the Olmec spoke Mixe Zoque (as do other scholars like Michael Coe).·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, how is "Bronze Age" "Eurocentric" when practically all examples are located in SW Asia plus China? "Asia-centric", if anything. The question isn't "what language spoke the Olmecs", but "what langauge is encoded by the Isthmian script: Mixe Zoque has been suggested, but the general consensus seems to be that it remains undeciphered. I don't know where you are getting the 900 BC date, the article has 500 BC. This isn't really worth arguing over, and it isn't "centric" in any sense to state that writing emerged in the Near Eastern Early Bronze Age, and the current organization merely reflects that fact. Rex' comment about "Ages" above refers to my earlier attempt to categorize by "Iron Age" etc. which I agree is flawed in view of the American scripts. I maintain that the Bronze Age / Iron Age division is extremely notable for the history of writing, since the Iron Age marks the rise of the alphabetic scripts. The undeciphered Olmec glyphs are interesting, but really a side issue to the overall topic. dab (𒁳) 10:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

´Bronze age is an euroentric term because origins within the european/western historical tradition and is not directly applicable outside of the traditional area described by classic western historians. I am not going to make an issue out of this - but it remains my opinion, "bronze age" is just as eurocentric as talking about a "classic" period and presupposing that it is the classic period of mediterranean Europe. The Olmec glyphs on the cascajal block are the ones date to 900 BCE in a preliminary dating based on the general age of the layer in which it was found. Obviously in order to find out what language the olmc script encodes one has to know what language they spoke - so that distinction is artificial. Mixe-Zoque is a possibility and more probable than some other contenders for "language of the olmecs and their script" but it shouldn't be presnted as fact. (The (disputed) parenthesis should be enough however.) As for the Zapotecs they have long been candidates for first script of mesoamerica although there is some dispute about the exact dating of their monuments. See Mesoamerican writing systems.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, I hope you can live with the present version. dab (𒁳) 11:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly can, until next time I get a notion to edit it. :) ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just a comment to your edit summary stating that the deciphering of zapotec writing is disputed - to my knowledge zapotec writing is not claimed to have been deciphered by anyone, we do however know that the language of the script is zapotec, we just don't know what the texts say or where they're written.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

this doesn't make sense. A consensus of "these glyphs were made by Zapotecs" is nowhere near "these glyphs encode the Zapotec language". If it's undeciphered, its content isn't attested. See undeciphered scripts: proto-writing doesn't count as a "written account" of a language, we require linguistic content. dab (𒁳) 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

strictly speaking you are right: by the same token Isthmian script and Olmec scripts shouldn't be in the list. Mayan hieroglyphs is the only fully deciphered script of Mesoamerica.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

that's why I put "disputed" for Isthmian: according to the article, there is a 1997 decipherment claim. If that's fringy, we should remove it (or we open the can of Phaistos Disc decipherment claims...) dab (𒁳) 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV DISPUTE

This article needs to make clear in some fashuion that several of these languages are actually far older than the dates given here. The dates given here are for the earliest records that have been found so far. But it is misleading not to mention this fact. And to the person who says that "quite older" is incorrect grammar, I suggest you buy yourself anEnglish grammar book. It is PERFECT ENGLISH. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also stating that languages are constantly changing is pure poppycock. That might be your hypothesis, but don't taint the article with this POV. Most European languages may go through drastic change in 100 years time, but many other languages are far more conservative and have remained essentially unchanged for many 100s of years. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that languages are usually spoken for some time before they are written down the first time should be obvious for anyone but the most dense - and this is a list of languages by first written accounts. The fact that dates are for the earliest writen records is obious from the article title! This is not a content dispute it is a dispute of wording and should be easily solved if you try to work with us to make a functional wording instead of hanging on to a wording that two other ditors find to be unsatisfactory. The problems with your wording of the statement is: Languages do not have age, all natural languages have the same age because they all stem from the time humans first learned speaking - it simply makes no sense to say that a language is older than another language. It can only be said that a language was spoken at an earlier point in time than another one. "Quite older" may be correct grammar in your everyday language - it is however out of style for an encyclopedia - another formulation should be easy to find. I suggest to write something along the lines "It goes without saying that the languages have normally been spoken for a long period of time before they are put down in writing; this list however only shows the dates of the earliest known example of writing in each language" ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And no the notion that languages are constantly changing is not a POV it is a science called linguistics.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What kind of "linguistics" is that? It is a notion which is easily refuted by conservative languages that do not change over many many hundreds of years, as any linguist can tell you. And you seem to agree that what I wrote was correct, but you simply reverted it and called it wrong AND ungrammatical, when it was neither. I am VERY upset about this. I would like you to restore the statement and end this dispute. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You have every right to be upset that someone edits your contributions - however you don't have a right to force your exact wording into an article if other editors find it to be misplaced. As for any linguist, I am a(ny) linguist, and I can tell that you should read up on linguistics.What you wrote was correct but also superflouous since the very name of the article should give away that that is the case.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am a professional linguist myself, thank you. It is precisely the ambiguity of the title that gives me concern why this needs to be spelled out, and here's why: These aren't the first written accounts. They are the first KNOWN written accounts. There is no way we can be sure we have the first written accounts, an earlier one might always turn up. Another way to solve it would be to rename the article to List of languages by first known written accounts. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If I may give my 3 cents: I agree with CS to include that sentence! Indeed it should be obvious from the title, but having such a note in the text is always better than having some people take it wrong. There's nothing wrong about this clarification and leaving it out doesn't improve the article at all! And since "quite older" is indeed questionable (it sounds strange to me as well), one might at least change it to something more acceptable like "reasonably older". Third point: Codex Sinaiticus, you should buy yourself a book about Historical Linguistics, maybe you would know better then and don't make such unscientific statements. — N-true 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

CS, I am strictly an amateur when it comes to linguistics, but could you please give an example of a language that has not changed in many hundreds of years? I am not aware of any living languages this could be said of. Dead languages do not change, of course; at least not quickly.

As a compromise in the meantime, I was about to suggest something along the lines of what Mannus proposed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't assume that all languages work just like English. If you read an English text from 1000 years ago, you would not understand very much of it without special study. But this is only because of the unique history of English. There are many languages, what we linguists call "conservative languages", where texts written 1000 years and even longer ago can be understood much more readily by the speakers of those languages. Arabic and Finnish are two examples of conservative languages I can think of off hand, also I think Tibetan is fairly constant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Also Tamil and some dialects of Aramaic are practically the same as they were thousands of years ago. I think any literate Tamil speaker can read the earliest known Tamil document from 200 BC with ease. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Maunus' compromise, I suppose if that is what you will agree to I can live with it, but do we really need the "It goes without saying that" ? Talk about "encyclopedic voice", that is a phrase that would be best avoided, IMO. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of English, although I am well aware of its history. Arabic is not particularly conservative, and I don't know what evidence you base this on. The Classical Arabic of the Quran is the basis for the modern written language and serves as the lingua franca among the many dialects, which have changed considerably and vary so much as to sometimes be mutually unintelligible. Finnish is another example where the written form has been essentially frozen and is highly stylized, while the spoken form continues to evolve, and is actually used as the written language informally. Even English was like this to a degree until the early 20th century. I don't know anything about the Tibetan language other than what I see in the article, which outlines how it has changed since the 9th century.

I was thinking of the Qur'ân's Arabic as well. Tibetan has changed quite much as well. Especially the pronunciation (many dialects are mutually unintelligible today), but also the grammar has changed... So Arabic and Tibetan don't count. And Finnish, as TCC(?) said, too. — N-true 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I may have been wrong about Tibetan, I couldn't remember which language I was thinking of (probably Tamil), but if we are talking about the literary forms, which is what I thought we were talking about, then exactly as he said, someone who is literate in Arabic or Finnish can read a text from very long ago with relative ease, much more so than for languages like English. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that the reason there's an argument about this is because you're insisting that both written and spoken languages are "older" than their first identified written forms, vs. the others saying that languages have no distinct ages because they're constantly changing. We are therefore including the spoken forms perforce, but the same could be said about the written, which go through their most dramatic evolution before they achieve some kind of "classical" status where they tend to become frozen in place. Even English enshrines verbal artifacts in its orthography that are no longer spoken. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually saw this discussion, about how fast languages change, as a side discussion arising from one of the comments in the edit summaries. I thought we had reached an agreement on my main point, that the languages did not suddenly spring into existence at the date of the first known written account, but likely had already existed for quite some time, in spoken, and quite possibly also written form that hasn't been discovered yet. It may be obvious to some, but I still think it needs to be spelled out, as long as the title is going to declare these the "first written accounts" as opposed to the "first known written accounts"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I said "something along those lines". Mannus obviously didn't take any time to polish it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the main thing is to counteract the misleading impression of the title that these are "the first written accounts", and stress that they are actually the first written accounts that we know of, while earlier ones may exist and may even be discovered in the future. There are a variety of simple ways to get this point across. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

such as saying "known"? Or "Note, also, that a written record may encode a stage of a language corresponding to an earlier time" and referring to oral tradition? Oh, wait, that was in the article all along. Nobody ever claimed that "languages spring into existence suddenly", so I really don't know what you wanted. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I probably risk beating a dead horse, but I'd like to make several quick points. First, the Old English of 1000 years ago would be about as incomprehensible to a speaker of Modern English as Latin to a speaker of French. Just an example, a riddle: "Hrægl mīn swigað þonne ic hrūsan trede/oþþe þā wīc būge oþþe wado drēfe./Hwīlum mec āhebbað ofer hæleþa byht/hyrste mīne ond þēos hēa lyft/ond mec þonne wīde wolcna strengu/ofer folc byreð. Frætwe mīne/swōgað hlūde ond swinsiað/torhte singað, þonne ic getenge ne bēom/flōde ond foldan, fērende gǣst." The answer, of course, is a swan.

Secondly, with regards to the comments about Tamil, they seem to be equating spoken language to written language. Spoken language≠written language, excluding, languages which are just being written for the first time at the present time. Perfect example: Modern spoken English vs. the weird composite language that we write with today. Similarly, the spoken Icelandic=Old Norse myth (and I stress myth) based on the fact that written Icelandic is similar to Old Norse.

Please don't kill me for coming into the discussion a tad late. Sectori 03:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

you are perfectly correct. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My concerns have not been addressed in the least and I take exception to Mr. Bachman unilaterally declaring the matter to be resolved, when it is only "resolved" to HIS satisfaction alone. I have been basically brushed aside here by another user, told that my edit was wrong when it was unimpeachably correct, told that my edit was "ungrammatical" when it was perfectly construed, and now being told that the issue is "over" because, well, because my views simply do not count here. This is extremely insulting to me and the dispute will continue indefinitely until my concern is addressed instead of simply brushed aside perfunctorily by a single editor. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

a dispute is not over when only one person is happy. I initiated the dispute and will continue to dispute until I no longer have anything to dispute. You are not judge. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not engaging in any attempts to solve the dispute yourself, you are the only editor who has the concern, other editors have tried to propose compromises. You are the one acting unilaterally here trying to force your own precise wording and viewpoint into an article. I don't see how you expect the "NPOV dispute" to solve it self hen you do not even try to understand why pother editors disagree with you, and you make no attempt at compromising. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That isn't true and those accusations against me are totally unjustified. I am attempting to solve the dipute in any way possible, but pretending there is no POV problem by unilaterally removing the tag is no substitute for a compromise. I have already clearly explained the problem and repeating myself to explain whjat the problem is gets weary. I have already accepted the proposed compromise in principle, as have several other editors, but without that consensus compromise agreed to by several editors being implemented, someone putting themself in the role of judge declares the dispute over. The dispute is not over. This article is POV. The title of the article itself is a POV disaster; it sets up a FALSE IMPRESSION that this is a list of languages by "FIRST WRITTEN ACCOUNTS" when that is not the case. I have gone to great lengths to counteract this POV FALSE IMPRESSION with concise and clear language and all my efforts to that end have been stymied for reasons that do not seem clear or well thought out, such as accusing me of being incorrect (when I am correct), ungrammatical (when I am grammatical) or simply waving it off by saying "it should go without saying". No, it shouldn't go without saying. The title is inaccurate, either fix the POV title, or explain clearly why it is inaccurate. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I for one have no quarrel with that wording.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

CS: "what we linguists call conservative languages." lol! You just mention cases of diglossia. (except Tibetan, which is plain wrong. Modern Tibetan languages are very different from the Classical form) Do you know the difference between Centamil, and Koduntamil? The Classical Tamil alphabet is so different, it can't even accurately represent spoken Tamil anymore. Please study some real linguistics before arguing with experts. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.193.79 (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

bad dates

someone claimed "c. 804" for spanish, which is so totally wrong that i put in "needs work" in its place. early castilian wasn't recorded before around 1100.

someone put c. 250 bc for sanskrit "edicts of ashoka". afaik those edicts are not in sanskrit but in later indo-aryan languages. the wikipedia page says one edict is written in a dialect "close to sanskrit" but this is not the same. by 250 bc sanskrit was already a "dead" language that had been put into an unchanging form by panini. "close to sanskrit" would merely refer to a local language that was relatively more conservative. afaik sanskrit itself wasn't written down until maybe 200 ad or so.

it would be much better to say

[a] the oldest preserved old indo-aryan is c. 1500 bc (mitanni) [b] our earliest *documentation* of vedic sanskrit is the rig-veda of c. 1200 bc, even though its mode of transmission was oral

sanskrit is really a special case in this respect; the only parallel is with gathan avestan.

finally, a date of c. 550 ad for "old high german" is false. the language of the given source has no recognizable characteristics of high german; it would be better termed "early west germanic" (but it may not even have any west germanic characteristics, either).

Benwing 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The date of the Rigveda is discussed at Rigveda. This article clearly discusses the earliest written attestations, which, yes, ignores periods of oral transmission that left no written trace, as the lead clearly explains. The Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni is attested for ca. 1380, not 1500, and to say that this amounts to written attestation of Indo-Aryan is stretching things a little far. dab (𒁳) 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

some more comments

someone tagged old french (strasbourg oaths) as "(mixture of vulgar Latinic Romance and Frankish)" which is garbage. the strasbourg oaths are written in recognizable old french with some latin mixed in. "frankish" is a germanic language and "vulgar latinic romance" is not a coherent entity.

btw, it would be much better for this page to be called the first *linguistic* account, not the first *written* account. the first "written source" might be a manuscript that's a copy of a copy of a copy, dating from 1000 years after the time of original composition; it makes much more sense to identify the date of composition, not the manuscript date. the same consideration would handle the issue of sanskrit and avestan.

Benwing 08:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You are proposing a different list. The purpose of this one is to identify the earliest extant writing in the world's languages. I note that doing so avoids the various partisan arguments over the age of Sanskrit and so on, since we're only concerned with the oldest writing in a language that has been found. There's no need at all to attempt an estimate of the age the ur-source of a recopied manuscript here; just point to the oldest artifact that's been written on and Bob's your uncle.

What is a "linguistic account" anyway TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dating for Primitive Irish

I notice that the date currently given in the article for the first written record of Primitive Irish is "c. 500[AD]: Ogham inscriptions". However this seems to contradict information from several other articles relating to that language and to Ogham. For instance it states in the Primitive Irish article that many of the Ogham inscriptions were likely made before 391 AD. And the Ogham article states it was in use from the "4th-10th century AD". There is a specific reference to a Primitive Irish inscription from 446 AD for Mac Cairthinn mac Coelboth. So it seems to me the date of 500 AD is way too late, I'm going to go ahead and replace it with "300-400 AD". If anybody knows any reasons why I shouldn't do this, then please say so. --Hibernian 05:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Maya

The article claims that Maya was first written in around 200 AD, yet the Maya script article claims that it existed in 3c BCE already. Which is correct??

The Maya script article is correct in stating that a preliminary dating of the San Bartolo Murals give a date between 300 and 200 BCE for a fully developed Maya script. I have mended this in the list.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, to claim that Russian is older than Church Slavonic is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.60.46 (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

writing systems vs. languages

this is about languages. The earliest attestation of a writing system is not identical to the earlies attestation of a language. Thus, early Sumerian, Egyptian and Chinese ideographs may be considered attestations of (predecessors of) the respective writing systems, but they do not contain any actual attestation of any language. --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oracle bones

I thought the oracle bones were the earliest writing of the Chinese language, not the shijing? 202.147.43.94 (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

it's pictographic. See Chinese script and read the introduction to this article. --dab (𒁳) 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not the contributor above (202.147.43.94), but I just followed your link to Chinese script and the link therein to Oracle_bone_script. These articles clearly state that the oracle bone script is *not* pictographic: "Despite the archaic and relatively pictorial appearance of the oracle bone script, it is in fact a fully functional and fairly mature[26] writing system, i.e., able to record language in its entirety and not just isolated kinds of meaning. [...] As Boltz (1994 & 2003 p.31-33) notes, most of the oracle bone graphs are not depicted realistically enough for those who do not already know the script to recognized what they stand for; although pictographic in origin they are no longer pictographs in function. Boltz instead calls them zodiographs (p.33), reminding us that functionally they represent words, and only through the words do they represent concepts, while for similar reasons Qiu labels them semantographs."

The Chinese script article states that "Only about 1,400 of the 2,500 known oracle bone script logographs can be identified with later Chinese characters and thus deciphered", which seems to me to be comparable to the relationship of Linear B texts to later Greek -- i.e., the identification of the oracle bones with the Chinese language should not be considered more controversial than the identification of the Linear B texts with the Greek language.

Finally, the article on Shi_Jing states that "The earliest surviving edition of Shi Jing is a fragmentary one of the Han Dynasty" which would place the earliest surviving copy later than 206 BCE, whereas the oracle bone script artifact dating "varies from ca. 14th -11th centuries BCE [3][4] to ca. 1200 to ca. 1050 BCE". I think the oracle bones should therefore certainly replace the Shi Jing in this article. Iphthime (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Having heard no objections, I have now implemented this change. Iphthime (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

dab

Resolved

regarding your edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts&diff=219529520&oldid=219514249 Why do treat indo-aryan as a "language" in the article? It's a language family. This has to be removed immediately. The Tamil date of 800 BC is provided by the source. This shouldn't be deleted. Give proper explanation for your action. Prakrit's first inscription is the ashoka edicts. Sanskrit's once is from Scythians 150 AD. Why do you name this as "nonsense"? It's a well-kown fact. You have to explain your actions here too. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thirusivaperur, you are a Tamil nationalist zealot with no grasp of the subject. I cannot give you a replacement for a basic university education in linguistics here on Wikipedia talkpages. Try to go and educate yourself in a few introductory university lectures, and then come back spending your time arguing over these things.

The fact of the matter is that you keep replacing an academic source with a link to www.hindu.com, which you also misrepresent. It is true that "evidence of writing" dating to before 500 BC has been found in Sri Lanka. Your source has

"The evidence of writing on more than 75 pieces of pottery had been found in Sri Lanka and radio-carbon dating had established that they belonged to the period between 600 B.C. and 500 B.C. This discovery 'sheds a completely new light on the origin of writing in South Asia,'

This is correct but it has nothing to do with the topic of this article. That is, a few glyphs were identified on pottery shards. This is remarkable for the history of writing in South Asia, but it does not constitute an actual attestation of the Tamil language. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed it back to 300 BC because of your weak arguments. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

300 BC is in fact the correct date you keep changing. You've been told what this is about (free tutoring, how about that. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that tells you if you understood the subject). You didn't want to listen. That's your problem, not Wikipedia's. dab (𒁳) 18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You won't get anywhere by edit-warring. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ffs, I don't want to "get" anywhere, I'm just protecting the article's integrity. WP:RS: Iravatham Mahadevan (2003). Early Tamil Epigraphy from the Earliest Times of 3rd BCE to the Sixth Century A.D. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Any questions? dab (𒁳) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Why do you prefer outdated informations? --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

if you were to present an academic reference identifying an actual inscription dating to 600 BC that is actually in the Tamil language, the case would lie different of course. Feel free to present sources to back up your claim before you indulge in revert wars. Do you read English? What part of "List of languages by first written accounts" do you find difficult to understand? I do not dispute Tamil existed in some form at 600 BC, or even at 1000 BC. What we are listing here are actual written testimonies. dab (𒁳) 17:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

also, to answer your "question" on Indo-Aryan, in the period under discussion, Sanskrit and Prakrit were registers of the same language, just like Standard German and German dialects both fall under German language. dab (𒁳) 17:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia is no place to put your private theories in the articles. Of course, the language Ashoka used is known as Early Magadhi language, which is a Prakrit language. Other Prakrit language is for instance Pali. Please get out of here. You have no idea. Thanks for proving it to a non-professional like me. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thirusivaperur, you are not presenting arguments but only reverting endlessly to your own version. Dab is right here - there is a difference between when a language exists and when it is attested - this page lists only when a language is first attested positively, not speculatively. Please present acadmic references or desist your reversals.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In 250 BCE the first inscriptions were in Prakrit (not in Indo-Aryan that included Sanskrit), then in 150 ACE, Sanskrit was attested. I have cited it with academic sources. Just like Tamil is attested from 200 BCE also from an academic source. Let's leave pet theories aside and stick to the facts. If we have competing facts then, let's cite is as such. Taprobanus (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you understand when Dbachmann made it amply clear that Sanskrit/Prakrit were merely high and low registers of Old Indo-Aryan but later gave rise to languages such as Pali? All that was different between the sanskrit and prakrit modes of speech were regular sound-shifts. Eventually the prakrit mode of speech gave rise to regional varieties that developed into independent languages, and sanskrit (along with vedic) came to represent the Old-Indo-Aryan standard language. The vast majority of Indo-Aryan lexical matter are shared by both Sanskrit and the prakritic dialects in a way that it becomes impossible to call them separate languages (atleast until the development of languages called apabhramsas & apasabdas), assuming the sound-shifts are accounted for. Hope you can understand some linguistics to make sense of all this. ­ Kris (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Read fringeTaprobanus (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

sprotection

I've semiprotected the article due to the recent anonymous additions of Tamil and Telugu related nonsense. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Undeciphered Scripts

What about the inclusion of undeciphered scripts, like the Indus Script? It may or may not be a Dravidian or an Indo-Aryan language, no one knows as of yet. IMHO, these do not belong here, otherwise Rongorongo and other undeciphered writings should be listed as well. What do you think about the idea of keeping undeciphered writings under a seperate heading? — N-true (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

this page is about languages, not scripts. Early records of scripts or purported scripts such as Indus script, Tamil Brahmi etc. do not belong here. Only unambiguously deciphered language records need be considered. Ths history of writing is discussed at history of writing. dab (𒁳) 14:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Languages correspond to scripts, mostly. To say that there was Tamil Brahmi and no Tamil is only silly. Tamil Brahmi, however, talks about the archaeological find written in TB contrary to Vattezhuthu. Indus Valley Script decipherment claims have been listed. There are several strong candidates and several other POV ones, so it is good to list both of them and point to the debate. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 23:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

what part of " languages by first written accounts" do you find difficult to understand? We want linguistic attestation. For Tamil, this is the case (optimistically) from about the 3rd century BC. Please go away with your IVC cruft. If you have any valid linguistic references regarding Tamil, let's see them. Thanks. dab (𒁳) 18:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Indus valley language is not yet deciphered, and all Dravidian and Indo-Aryan decipherment attempts have failed. There is not even consensus that the so called Indus script is even a linguistic script. So the entry for IVC language should best be mentioned as "Undeciphered Harappan Language" or something similar if it is agreed it was a language at all in the first place. User:Sudharsansn seems to be a POV pusher. ­ Kris (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The mention very clearly and explicitly states that the language is undeciphered and the language family unidentified. It also very clearly states that amongst the decipherment claims, the ones listed seem to be the candidates. The languages by first written accounts also makes it very clear that this is a language, the details of which are undeciphered, but there are some academic claims made about it and all of them are listed. I don't want the tag of being a POV pusher from someone who is in Wikipedia only to write POV nonsense and promote one's 'theory' of things. Please read through the WP:RS sources, there is absolutely no POV here. I am ONLY expanding the article with the references not manipulating it. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 05:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

take your material to the undeciphered script article, please. --dab (𒁳) 06:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Are things done on a the basis of requests here? Read the citations, please. It is evidently clear - there is a language, it has not been definitively deciphered and its language family not identified, however, there are decipherment claims. They are listed with disclaimers. Now what part of this do you not understand? Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You have some basic comprehension problems, it appears. The IVC symbols were assumed to constitute a linguistic script, and therefore attempted decipherments have been carried out over the last 100 years or so. Notwithstanding the attempted decipherments, it is not yet conclusive that the symbols constitute a linguistic script, or that they even represent any mode of communication at all. Your POV that Dravidian should be mentioned as "the prime candidate" represented by those symbols is therefore like saying "credo quia absurdum est".­ Kris (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sudarshan, the table does not include any undeciphered script that is thought to encode language - not Minoan, not Proto-Elamite, not Wadi el Hol. All of them are in exactly the same position as the IVC script (with the added qualification that Farmer et al have now questioned whether the IVC script actually encodes language). Why should an exception be made only for the IVC script? -- Arvind (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

reliable references

Most of the great recent magnum opus discoveries on Tamil Language via Inscription with tamil Brahmi were all within the last 5 years -: be it the iron age urns burial at adichanallur or the megaltih Tamil Brahmi inscription found at Poonagari, Jaffna. The type of references required by some Wikipedia activist is supposedly based only based on academic or published hard copy journals and thesis - Unfortunately the available of such references are so limited till its existence of the possible latest cover is already five years old which un-doubtly could not have possibly illustrated any of the latest or reason findings or archeological issues from the past five years. (Mahadevan, Iravatham (2003) - reference are outdated and belated on facts and information to be publicly available as legitimate resource !! )

8 to 10 of the new reliable references are now being refined , clarified and processed by Wikipedia officials and graded administrators via the Wikipedia reliable noticeboard. Till now subset of the result on reliable resources are apparent and indeed focused for proper evaluation.. Until then please do not randomly alter references and tags on tamil. --Master YODA (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is very, very silly. The date of a reference has NO relevance to the validity of its content. Even Einsteinian Relativity is about 70 years old, so what now, can we take that off the Relativity article? Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 05:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

sudar:-

The validity of its content are indeed the logical truth , analytical truth and necessary truth in which it's cogency and relevancy to the matter at the subject on the issue could very well be defined by the credibility , legitimacy & the authenticity of the publisher of the same content and / or with strong and well authorized with Internationally qualified or recognized competent Author. Thus the validity of the content ( date or info) has indeed very much connectedness in pertinence , cogency and plausible genuineness of the Publishers and its well recognized well authorized Author. ( an indeed as Wikipedia required - they are not the first party source but indeed a second or third party source).

example:

Michael Woods - an internationally competent and recognized scholarly historian - who teaches in Princeton , lectures in Iraq and British museum , works with archeological institution and BBC historical documentary deployment and broadcasting. - he is a competent Author for a reliable resource.

BBC -: is a legitimate and valid publisher with International recognition.

Now if historian Michael woods publishes a dictation on the matter bearing with the issue at a valid publisher like BBC history channel - WOULD THAT BE RELIABLE ENOUGH. ( of course, if incase Einstein published his special theory on a comic book publication thus his findings would never got acknowledged - because the contents validity has strong cogency to the credibility of the Publisher then the author.

Sudar - multiple relevant resources have been posted on the wikipedia reliable resource noticeboard - to be filtered , processed and refined on its reliability as might be required by some wikipedian militants as you or other characters. --Master YODA (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see a dispute here. Tamil language inscriptions are attested from c. the 3rd century BCE. The c. means "circa", meaning that it is perfectly possible that the date may be pushed back into the 4th century or so, or that there may be disagreement on the precise dating of individual inscriptions. This is the case for every language listed here, Tamil is no exception at all. Any further detail should be discussed at Tamil Brahmi, not here, please. --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This no way qualifies as a reliable reference since firstly it is from a journalist's report in a newspaper that does not claim anything conclusively. It should be tagged dubious. Talk of newspaper articles speculating about some scratches found on undated pots - no way is it a reliable link for wikipedia concerning dates of languages as attested. ­ ­ Kris (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense again. Scratches on pots? I'm sure User Srkris would not have a problem if the scratches were in Sanskrit. To claim that archaeological finds with inscription marks are scratches is not only ignorance but absurdity. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 19:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

scratches on pots aren't attestations of any language, neither Tamil nor Sanskrit. Now please go and take your dispute to an article where it is actually on topic (such as Tamil-Brahmi). Establish a concsensus there, and then come back here. dab (𒁳) 21:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What garbage? Even the Rosetta Stone was a tablet with a lot of 'scratches'!! Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah, but the Rosetta Stone happens to be what eminent experts call "deciphered", you follow? dab (𒁳) 15:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, in Wikipedia, we don't include fringe theories in references. All assertions should be academically reviewed wherever possible and (preferably widely) published in academic literature to merit a reliable reference status. Even assertions from mainstream scholars have to be referenced to academic published literature and not from fansites or journalist reports in newspapers. I dont see any academic mainstream references anywhere to any epigraphic attestations of Tamil belonging to even the 1st century CE. If it is so obvious and well documented, why do you seek to force your fringe views here giving non-reliable cruft as references in the article page? ­ Kris (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, really? You've not seen academic references to epigraphic attestations of Tamil even in the first century CE? I'm presuming you've looked at Mahadevan, since you tagged it with "Failed verification" in this edit. It's littered with references to Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions from the 2nd century BC onwards. e.g at p. 7: "The two cave inscriptions of Netuñceliyan at Mangulam are the oldest historical records in Tamil discovered so far. Their archaic linguistic and paleographic features indicate a date around the 2nd century B.C."

(Incidentally, the 2nd century BC / 3rd century BC confusion regarding Mahadevan arises from the fact that Mahadevan thinks Tamil-Brahmi was created in the Pandiyan kingdom around the 3rd century BC (see e.g. p. 36), but - when his book was published - dated the earliest extant examples to the 2nd century B.C. The Hindu can't be expected to get subtleties like that right, but it's quite clear if you care to read the book.

There are older authors who date the earliest inscriptions to the 3rd century B.C., Vimala Begley thought that some of the Arikamedu graffiti could possibly belong to the 3rd century BC, but both these dates are somewhat speculative. Mahadevan himself dated some of the more recently discovered inscriptions at Theni to the 3rd century BC, but I'm not aware that he's produced a peer-reviewed publication on this. I'm personally content to stick to "ca. 2nd century BC" but I'm open to persuasion either way. -- Arvind (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrespective of my views on the reliability of a single reference by Mahadevan, what can be included in the article is a direct citation from his work or paper and not a web review link of his book. If there is an academic citation that says 3rd century BCE, then its fine. ­ Kris (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like the case is being resolved using the criterion of who can oppose facts and push them the farthest. What the heck is a 'fringe theory'? How does it become a 'fringe theory' just because it is against your POV? How the heck does your 'views' on the reliability make a difference to the content validity and actual reliability of the citation? What if the same pointed to Sanskrit? All this is being question ONLY because it opposes your POV. The discussion is not about the citations anymore, apparently, it is about the content of the material which you simply disagree with, and one cannot make changes based on PoVs. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 19:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What is unreliable is a matter of judgement, although it is possible to keep it as objective as possible by following Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability. For the record, the earliest attested tamil script is Tamil Brahmi, which evolved out of and is a slight modification of Ashokan Brahmi (used to write Indo-Aryan). As a rule therefore inscriptions in tamil brahmi cannot pre-date ashokan brahmi unless proved empirically by carbon dating. Do you, the professional linguist, find it impossible to understand this logic which lay people call commonsense? ­ Kris (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why I refrain from such non-intellectual , non-professional & non-productive online arguments. Because talking without speaking and hearing without listening can create slanderous and denigrating armature characters like you.( whom entirely depend on inputs from Google's output ).

I've just received reply fax from National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad to which I quarried a request via the British council. To my surprise I was indeed shocked. The dating method on those artifacts from Adichannalur was successfully completed in many methodologies of various tools. ( carbon-14 dating for organic materials on bones and husks , Thermo-luminescence dating for non-organic materials like ceramic, whereas other advanced analytical techniques such as : CT Scan , Xrays, SEM , EDAX, modern craniometric technique and forensic anthropological reconstruction - were applied to exactly discover the age of these bones and pottery which was eventually dated to be not newer then 3800 years and not older then 6000 years. ( conformed agreed and sealed )

Now the Interesting logic is :- there are journals published and being prepared on these finalized archeological informations. One of such is a paper published by a doctoral team of archeologist, anthropologists and epigraphists from Archeological Survey of India in 2008 - their paper was also presented by Professor Colin Groves at ANU Archeological Science 2008 Conference ( at Australia National University ). - Unfortunately this publication is not available online yet but its abstract can be accessed virtually from the Australian National University webpage. --Master YODA (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit versus Prakrit inscriptions

Resolved

Sanskrit was deliberately not written down as early as Prakrit . This is from academic written sources, so to mention that both Sankrit and Prakrit were written from the same time is an absolute lie or misleading to those who read this article. I have more than one academic RS sources that back it up. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Sanskrit and Prakrit" at the time were different registers of the same language, not actually different languages. The distinction is irrelevant for the purposes of the list. Still, your references may be a useful addition to clarify this point. --dab (𒁳) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at thissource, pleaseTaprobanus (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That they were different registers of the same language is a fact. It is clear from the words that were applied to call them so. "saMskRtA vAk" was that word, and here saMskRta/adorned is an adjective describing the noun vAk/speech. Similarly prAkRta vAk(artless/ungrammatical speech) has prAkRta as an adjective of vAk. There was no language called just as "prAkRta". On the other hand, several prAkRta based languages evolved out of "prAkRtA vAk" which are identified as "prakrit languages".­ Kris (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cite or OR Taprobanus (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are telling me this seeing that I have just told you. The language under discussion is "Old Indic". It's "high" register is known as Sanskrit, its vernacular as Prakrit. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dab u's talk page has become a substitute for the article talk page. Should we move the contents to the article talk page ? second then should'nt the article then refer to old indic as the language attested not Sanskrit and Prakrit because the cite clearly says those who inscribed knew the difference and made a choice to do what they did ? Taprobanus (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dab in your revert, I have no issues with others, it is my mistake that I mass reverted it, but I do have a concern about you reverting a RS source this to a version that you have only alluded to but have not cited. By 250 ACE I can produce number of cites that say that they are not a continuam of one language. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Another cite] On Page 60 Sheldon Pollock says very clearly If Students typically know written texts appeared in India during Asokas time, they are not always ware that it appeared not in Sanskrit but in various middle - Indian dialects that were called Prakrits. While closely related to Sanskrit it was considered entirely distinct from Sanskrit by pre modern Indian thinkers who developed ….'So u'r versuion is entire uncited and based on personl opionion. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no "language" called prakrit. Hope this is not too difficult to understand. ­ Kris (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cite your fringe theory please. According to Sheldon such a theory is fringe not mainstream, just beacuse Dab is mistaken does not mean it is a fact. Taprobanus (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The language under discussion is "Old Indic". It's "high" register is known as Sanskrit, its vernacular as Prakrit. (1) However, the Prakrits are still quite regularly classified as early Middle Indo-Aryan languages, not Old Indo-Aryan like Sanskrit. See e.g. Cardona & Jain's "General introduction" in The Indo-Aryan languages at p. 12 (2) Standard works on epigraphy - such as Richard Saloman's Indian Epigraphy always point out that most of the early inscriptions were in Prakrit, with Sanskrit / Hybrid Sanskrit not following until the early centuries CE. See Salomon at p. 72 et seq for both points. Under the circumstances, I'd say to lump them together as Old Indic is somewhat simplistic. -- Arvind (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, the Ashokan Prakrit can also be considered Middle Indic. I was referring to the Sanskrit term prakrta. What is your point? Are you suggesting we need separate list entries for Prakrit and Sanskrit? Feel free to implement this, then. The present entry reads

• Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit, Prakrit) - c. 250 BC: Edicts of Ashoka

this is perfectly correct, but with all the recent Indian hysteria around here, we can certainly break this down in greater detail. Sanskrit is mentioned as a special case in the very lead of this article. We've decided to give the first direct attestation only. Sanskrit was orally transmitted for up to 2,000 years before our first epigraphical sources. We cannot say Vedic Sanskrit is "attested" from 1500 BC, but we can say that medieval records of Vedic Sanskrit are believed to preserve linguistic structures dating back to 1500 BC. This needs to be pointed out separately, since it isn't what this list is about. Yes, the oldest records of Sanskrit date to the early centuries CE. --dab (𒁳) 13:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my main point is that we need separate entries for the earliest written attestation of Sanskrit and Prakrit - to lump the two together obscures the "grand paradoxe linguistique de l'Inde", which I think this article will be better for not doing. I think its present form, which makes the distinction, is perfectly fine. By the way, this may just be me misremembering, but doesn't Saloman date the Hathibada and Ghosundi inscriptions to the 1st century BCE, which would make those the first Sanskrit inscriptions? I can't check his volume until tomorrow now, but if someone else can... -- Arvind (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the new direction, but how about restoring the citations for Telugu, Kannada and adding back Marathi and Newarai that seems have been deleted from this list by your revert ? Taprobanus (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

no problem. dab (𒁳) 15:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to still repeat that there was no language called "Prakrit". If this is an article about languages, then the exact prakrit dialect of the Ashokan inscriptions need to be identified. Otherwise, better call it Middle Indic. ­ Kris (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

you will note that the current phrasing is "Indo-Aryan (Prakrit)", not just "Prakrit". You are free to change this to "Middle Indic (Prakrit)" if it makes you happy, it's not a big deal. --dab (𒁳) 18:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I guess we would have to take this up only with WP:DR now. I am citing references while User Srkris is inflating the age of Sanskrit and pushing down the age of Tamil as much as he can, making some random leaps of POV into improbability. This cannot just go on and on. Dispute resolution is required. Dbachmann on the other hand, in at attempt at trying to look neutral, between Sanskrit chauvinism and cited Tamil references, is ignoring the valid references cited. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 21:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

perhaps you can begin reading the article? Nothing your sources establish isn't already in the article. Please describe the issue in a way that shows awareness of the present article content. I am done discussing this. You are pushing a revision of a long-standing article without consensus, and indeed without even having read it. The burden is on you to seek consensus for whatever it is you want first. dab (𒁳) 21:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not pushing anything here. I have made an edit with proper citations. Am I to understand that Wikipedia pages stay the way they are once they reach a 'status quo'? They obviously are subject to constant revision and updating. Please tell me what exactly the problem is with the edit. I have repeated several times, it is listed and along with it the disclaimer and decipherment claims added. Also understand, it is 'deciphered', in the sense that each one of them have claimed that it belongs to a specific language family, only that it has no consensus, just like this very article. I am supremely confident that User Srkris would endorse even the scratch marks, as he chooses to call it owing to his absolute ignorance, if they point to Sanskrit. He stretches Mittani by a thousand miles to call it Sanskrit, however, seems to have a problem with linguists who have deciphered it as archaic Dravidian. The edit war is here only because he thinks otherwise and, you, in an attempt to balance opinion, are negating both, in spite of citations. Otherwise, this should be a straightforward one. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

on the chance of sounding like a broken record, there is nothing wrong with your sources, only they have nothing to do with this article. --dab (𒁳) 15:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you just don't listen when someone is trying to build a consensus. First, you 'requested' me to remove it as if all this is done on a request basis, now, you basically are a broken record, you have no points to make or nothing to point out, but just reposting that it has nothing to do with the article. Seriously, what's happening here!! Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you try checking the meaning of consensus. You can't build a consensus unilaterally. ­ Kris (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus happens when people are willing to let go of their POV and listen to the consensus building process. It happens ONLY when people can read content without seeing who is writing it, without trying to read between lines and when one is willing to let go of their blatant agenda. I should warn you, it takes a fair bit of an open mind. It cannot happen when one is on a glorifying agenda which contradicts with facts, especially when one is also on a defacing agenda, in spite of facts pointing otherwise. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 08:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If I sound like a broken record, it's because you haven't even presented a case yet. You don't make clear why the Indus script should be discussed here above any other undeciphered script. Are you suggesting we merge the undeciphered script article into this one? Why? Do you understand that a script is not the same as a language? As long as you aren't making sense, I cannot make a sensible reply. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider reading through the points presented. I have repeated several times, the case is clear, it is listed and along with it the disclaimer and decipherment claims added. Also understand, it is 'deciphered', in the sense that each one of them have claimed that it belongs to a specific language family, only that it has no consensus, just like this very article. I guess I might have to keep reposting the reasons like a broken record. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 19:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The case is indeed clear. I have written most of the Indus script article. I am aware of the situation. You have no case for including an undeciphered script in this list. A decipherment claim by fringy crackpot amateur scholars isn't a "decipherment", see WP:FRINGE. This is a joke. You may find your time better spent on google groups or a blog of your own. So it doesn't strike you as questionable that in a long list of unambiguously identified languages, the entry you are pushing is the only one which states "undeciphered" instead? --dab (𒁳) 20:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the script has been allegedly 'deciphered', perhaps not the full lexicon or syntactic structure, but a hint has been provided by all the decipherment claims about what language family or 'language' it belongs to, it is just that there is no consensus. Secondly, it is very much unfalsifiably arguable that this 'script' is not just an arbitrary collection of random symbols and that it corresponds to the writing system of a language, the decipherment claims of which have no consensus. It is a code, the characters stand for something, that much we can say, since it has a system. Certain characters corresponding to a certain semantic domain, which follow a pattern. You have a set of characters in pottery, another set in clay jars, etc. If all the disclaimers are mentioned and the claims also listed, it makes several things clear - that there is no consensus as to whether this corresponds to a language, or if it just a script, or if it is just garbage - all these viewpoints are presented in the Indus Script page. We make a cross reference to that and provide a very brief summary of the decipherment claims. I hope this helps. And, apparently, even otherwise, guideline establishes that fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how articles about them should approach their subjects. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is no consensus about the language of the indus script texts among the alleged decipherers then it hasn't been deciphered. A script is deciphered when everybody working with it are able to read it and get the same readings. Indus script is not deciphered yet. Since this is a list of languages' first positive documentation the Indus Script doesn't belong here until there is a scholarly consensus about what language it represents.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is childish. The title of this article is "List of languages by first written accounts". Discussion of the Indus script is off topic, period. The Indus script is an instance of proto-writing, and has no more place here than the Neolithic signs in China or the Vinca script. I am sure there are plenty of people who would like these to be deciphered too, only they aren't. You are perfectly welcome to help improving the Indus script article, only, there is nothing in your contributions that hasn't been addressed there for several years already. --dab (𒁳) 08:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)